The Promise of Transparency
The push for menu labelling, spearheaded by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), was born from a straightforward public health goal. Since 2022, regulations have required restaurant chains with a central license or ten or more outlets
to display the calorific value per serving for each dish. The logic was that empowering consumers with information at the point of purchase would lead to more mindful eating, helping to tackle rising rates of obesity and lifestyle diseases. In theory, a diner could compare a paneer butter masala with a tandoori chicken and make a choice that better aligns with their health goals. For restaurants, it was also seen as a way to build trust and attract health-conscious customers.
The Kitchen Conundrum
The first major complication arose not at the diner's table, but at the kitchen stove. Unlike packaged foods with factory-level precision, restaurant cooking, especially in India, is often an art of approximation. Chefs are trained to cook by taste, touch, and feel—a 'handful' of this, a 'splash' of that. Standardising recipes to produce a consistent calorie count for every plate of, say, dal makhani is a significant operational challenge. Every batch can vary slightly based on the chef, the specific ingredients sourced that day, and even customer customisation requests. This makes calculating a single, accurate calorie number difficult and costly, requiring either expensive lab analysis or meticulous database calculations for hundreds of menu items.
What Even Is a 'Serving'?
The FSSAI rules require calories to be listed 'per serving', but the definition of a 'serving' is a major point of contention. A restaurant might list a dish as having 500 calories per serving, but if that serving size is unrealistically small, the information can be misleading. For example, a label might define a serving of cheese as 30 grams, but most people might consume double that amount in a single sitting, unknowingly doubling their calorie intake. This issue, known as 'portion distortion', means the numbers on the menu may not reflect what people actually eat, turning a tool for clarity into a source of potential confusion. Without standardised, realistic portion sizes, the calorie count itself loses much of its meaning.
Does Knowing Actually Change Behaviour?
The ultimate question is whether diners even use this information. Research on consumer behaviour has shown mixed results. Some studies suggest that when customers are aware of and use calorie labels, they tend to order meals with fewer calories. However, other studies show the effect is often minimal, with many diners ignoring the numbers entirely. For the information to be effective, a customer needs a high level of health literacy to understand what '2,000 kcal per day' means for their individual needs and then perform the mental maths to fit a single meal into that budget. Often, taste, price, and convenience remain the primary drivers of choice, making the calorie count a secondary, and often ignored, piece of data.
The Search for a Smarter Path
Given these complexities, the conversation is shifting from just implementing the rule to finding better ways to achieve its goal. Some experts argue that 'interpretive' labels—like a simple green tick for a healthy option—are more effective than raw numbers alone. Others suggest focusing on restaurant-led initiatives, like reformulating recipes to be healthier or promoting lower-calorie dishes. The debate highlights that simply providing data is not enough. The future of effective menu labelling will likely involve a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the practical realities of restaurant kitchens, addresses the ambiguity of portion sizes, and presents information in a way that truly helps, rather than just informs, the average consumer.
